# "God is not great: How religion poisons everything" Or what does it say about God if He exists?

Hello Tadpole,
Christopher Hitchens doesn't say there is or isn't a god or there is or isn't an afterlife. As he personally judges the evidence, both are unlikely, so he chooses atheism. The gods that we have in scripture most definitely are manmade, but he doesn't insist that there can be no god at all. His book is meant to be a defense of atheism as a perfectly adequate way of seeing the world and living a good and moral life. To do this, he needs to show the serious drawbacks of what the majority still believe is necessary to achieve that life--religious belief.

Christopher Hitchens doesn't say there is or isn't a god or there is or isn't an afterlife. As he personally judges the evidence, both are unlikely, so he chooses atheism. The gods that we have in scripture most definitely are manmade, but he doesn't insist that there can be no god at all. His book is meant to be a defense of atheism as a perfectly adequate way of seeing the world and living a good and moral life. To do this, he needs to show the serious drawbacks of what the majority still believe is necessary to achieve that life--religious belief.

I got the impression Hitchens is definite that God does not in fact exist, and that sensible Christians can see that all religious language is mythical and metaphorical when it makes claims about the existence of supernatural entities. This presents a good question - does Hitchens believe that the existence of God is merely unlikely, or is it flatly impossible? I will post this on the questions thread.

We cannot blame a god on the state of our world, and the way we treat eachother. We need to all look ourselves in the mirror and realize we alone can lead the way to peace, or we can let eachother strangle the world with hatred.

does Hitchens believe that the existence of God is merely unlikely, or is it flatly impossible?

Great question.

A religion is an organized approach to human spirituality which usually encompasses a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, that give meaning to the practitioner's experiences of life through reference to a higher power or truth.[1] It may be expressed through prayer, ritual, meditation, music and art, among other things. It may focus on specific supernatural, metaphysical, and moral claims about reality (the cosmos and human nature) which may yield a set of religious laws, ethics, and a particular lifestyle. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and religious experiencehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

Johnson1010 wrote:

Quote:

God as defined in religion clearly does not exist.

If religion relies on a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, would it not be logical and reasonable to say, that religion itself does not exist. The above statement would then become, "nothing, as defined as nothing clearly does not exist". This, may ring true, no? Can you seperate god from religion, is it possible they are both the same? Can you have one without the other. Historically speaking, no.

Johnson1010 wrote:

Quote:

We cannot blame a god on the state of our world, and the way we treat eachother. We need to all look ourselves in the mirror and realize we alone can lead the way to peace, or we can let eachother strangle the world with hatred.

Truth

How people react to religion, how much they percieve as truth, can be debated. Human actions and human words can be recorded, can be wittnessed. Religion is based on intangibles. Human interpretation and reaction of what can not be proven, is the issue.

I am having great difficulty understanding the sentiment behind the statement, "There is no god, but, there might be one".

Suzanne wrote:

Quote:

if a "something" other than ourselves has the sufficient evidence and reasoning to support belief, that "something" would be named specie not god.

This did not originate from religious Dogma doodie. But, it does sound like it. Let me restate, if there is sufficient evidence to support the reality of a god, that god would have no purpose. It would be defined, practitioners of religion could not use this creature to make interpretations, or to use it to suit their needs.

If religion is based around the idea of a higher power, and that higher power can not be proven, does religion itself exist? There, a question for Hitchens.

If religion relies on a set of narratives, symbols, beliefs and practices, often with a supernatural or transcendent quality, would it not be logical and reasonable to say, that religion itself does not exist. The above statement would then become, "nothing, as defined as nothing clearly does not exist". This, may ring true, no? Can you seperate god from religion, is it possible they are both the same? Can you have one without the other. Historically speaking, no.

Sorry, not following you. God's existence cannot be verified, but religion obviously exists. It does not follow that without one the other cannot exist. That's a false premise.

Suzanne: "If religion is based around the idea of a higher power, and that higher power can not be proven, does religion itself exist?"

Religion is real, of course. When you ask if it exists, it's almost as though you're begging for it to be present in a material form. Much of human knowledge is abstract, but is still real. If it is written in a book and intelligible, even if it's false, it is objective and real. That's an idea posed by Popper in "Objective Knowledge", although he tried to take it a step further and use this idea as a connection to objective truth, which failed and was given up shortly afterwards, in the 1950's.

You question can be thought of in the context of a fiction novel. The novel is real, but it's contents are fantasy. There may be a cult following, aka "Harry Potter" fan club, some of whom may even believe the contents to be real.

Suzanne: "I am having great difficulty understanding the sentiment behind the statement, "There is no god, but, there might be one"."

This expression encompasses what I think is the only practical choice for a belief. When all the evidence is considered, it becomes extremely unlikely that there is a god. So, the person who has considered the evidence believes that there is no god. The thing is, such people are also usually good at critical thinking, and realize there are few things, if any, which we can be 100% sure of. We can't even be sure that the sun will come up tomorrow. But we go on believing that it will, because there's no sense brooding over the possibility that it won't.

The same applies to the agnostic-atheist. They realize that nothing can be known for absolute certainty, and they apply that humble philosophy even unto themselves. So while they may fully believe there is no god, they also realize they are only human, and as such there's a margin for error. To believe in something absolutely is arrogant and lacks philosophical insight. The skeptic would then say, what do you have to live for, if you believe in nothing? But of course, that's a false dichotomy and he also misses the point.

To believe in something absolutely is arrogant and lacks philosophical insight.

Interbane, you are right that absolute claims are arrogant, but not about the lack of insight. For example, I believe absolutely in the existence of the universe as described by astronomy, and am happy to be arrogant in debating anyone who disagrees. Recognising that mainstream science does not know everything and still has areas of debate, there is a core of knowledge which is absolutely true, and this is a major modern philosophical insight. Without arrogance on the part of those who know the truth, people who believe false claims (eg creationism) easily get confused into thinking it is all a matter of opinion, when in fact it is a debate between right and wrong.

Religion is real, of course. When you ask if it exists, it's almost as though you're begging for it to be present in a material form.

I don't see you as the begging type, Interbane.

Suzanne: "I am having great difficulty understanding the sentiment behind the statement, "There is no god, but, there might be one"."

Interbane wrote:

Quote:

This expression encompasses what I think is the only practical choice for a belief. When all the evidence is considered, it becomes extremely unlikely that there is a god. So, the person who has considered the evidence believes that there is no god. The thing is, such people are also usually good at critical thinking, and realize there are few things, if any, which we can be 100% sure of. We can't even be sure that the sun will come up tomorrow. But we go on believing that it will, because there's no sense brooding over the possibility that it won't.

If there may be a god, you are looking for material evidence. If my expression encompasses what you think is the only paractical choice for a belief, you are in essence saying that god may in fact exist, you are looking for material evidence to support that gods existance. The "he" you refer to as begging is yourself.

Religion only exists in material form, through dance, song and stories. You are correct, religion can exist but only as a belief system. I don't like the word religion, it is attached to belief in god. Believing that the sun will come up every day, is a belief. It is not until the belief that god is responsible for the sun coming up that, that belief becomes religion.

If religions, through out the world, are based on some form of entity of higher power that can be dismissed as false, am I not using critical thinking to wonder if those religions may also be dismissed as false.

Geo wrote:

Quote:

God's existence cannot be verified, but religion obviously exists. It does not follow that without one the other cannot exist. That's a false premise.

The premise of religion, is that god infact does exist. Please provide examples that this is not true, otherwise, you are incorrect in stating that this premise is false. Atheism must be an example of this premise if Interbane's words are to be considered. There is no existing god, but there may be one. The non existance of a god is central to Atheism, but god is still a presence, making Atheism a religion. There is a differance between belief and religion.

I am of the opinion that atheism is more a belief than a religion. I would be very interested in a reaction to this, since this is my main source of confusion to some of the statements that I have read. Religion relies on interpretation and dogma. Relgion is used as a platform for elitism, and superiority, and used to oppress those who do not participate in the fundamental beliefs connected to a particular religion because it can not be proven. This would be impossible if a higher power is proven to actually exist. There would be no interpretation and religion could no longer be used as a devise for oppresion, or elitism. This is my logic in asking is it possible to have religion without god. My dissatisfaction and often times disgust of structured religions is based on this "concept".

On a lighter note, does any one watch "The Family Guy"? There was a really funny episode where an Islamic suicide bomber entered the gates of heaven to recieve his 72 virgins. He got them, in the form of pimply faced teenagers, Star Trec geeks, and fat women missing teeth. I had to LOL to that.

God's existence cannot be verified, but religion obviously exists. It does not follow that without one the other cannot exist. That's a false premise.

The premise of religion, is that god infact does exist. Please provide examples that this is not true, otherwise, you are incorrect in stating that this premise is false. Atheism must be an example of this premise if Interbane's words are to be considered. There is no existing god, but there may be one. The non existance of a god is central to Atheism, but god is still a presence, making Atheism a religion. There is a differance between belief and religion.

You provided a definition from Wikipedia which states that religion only encompasses certain beliefs. It is irrelevant whether those beliefs are actually true. Likewise, astrology is the study or belief that the relative positions of celestial bodies can provide useful information about personality, human affairs, and other terrestrial matters. Now most of us don't believe this is actually true. Astrology is pure pseudoscience, but still we can acknowledge that astrology does, in fact, exist. It exists as a construct of belief or as a focus of study. Its definition ends there. We don't need to go into whether it's true or not.

Regarding atheism, I think it might be helpful to borrow a page from Dan Barker's Godless, a book I didn't like very much, but which I think does an excellent job of explaining what atheism means. I hope this helps.

In short, atheism only means the lack of theism or a lack of belief in a god. By itself it does not imply a philosophy or value system.

Dan Barker wrote:

People are invariably surprised to hear me say I am both an atheist and an agnostic, as if this somehow weakens my certainty. I usually reply with a question like, "Well, are you a Republican or an American?" The two words serve different concepts and are not mutually exclusive. Agnosticism addresses knowledge; atheism addresses belief. The agnostic says, " I don't have a knowledge that God exists." The atheist says, "I don't have a belief that God exists." You can say both things at the same time. Some agnostics are atheistic and some are theistic.

Agnosticism is the refusal to take as fact any statement for which there is insufficient evidence. It may be applied to any area of life, whether science, UFOs, politics or history, though it is most commonly invoked in a religious context as it was first used. The word agnostic was coined by Thomas Huxley, who attached the prefix a-- (not without) to gnostic, which is from the Greek gnosis (knowledge). One common fallacy about agnosticism is that it is a halfway house between theism and atheism-but that cannot be since it performs in a different arena. If you answer the question "Do you believe in a god?" with a "yes" (by any definition of "god"), then you are a theist. If you cannot answer "yes" you are an atheist-you are without a belief in a god.

Another fallacy is that agnostics claim to know nothing, making them equal to skeptics (á la Hume) who claim that nothing can be known to exist outside of the mind. Although there may be a few who continue to push philosophy to this extreme, most contemporary agnostics do claim to know man things that are supported b evidence. They may posses strong opinions and even take tentative stands on fuzzy issues, but they will not claim as a fact something for which data is lacking or something which data contradicts. Agnosticism is sensible.

It turns out that atheism means much less than I thought. It is merely the lack of theism. It is not a philosophy of life and it offers no values. It predicts nothing of morality or motives. In my case, becoming an atheist was a positive move-the removal of the negative baggage of religious fallacy-and that is rather like having a large debt removed. It has brought me up to zero, to where my mind is free to think. Those atheists who want to go beyond zero, who want to actually put some money in the bank-and most of them do, I think-will embrace a positive philosophy such as humanism, feminism or another naturalistic ethical system. Or the will promote charity, philanthropy, learning, science, beauty, art-all those human activities that enhance life. But to be an atheist, you don't need any positive philosophy at all or need to be a good person. You are an atheist if you lack a belief in a god.

Those atheists who want to go beyond zero, who want to actually put some money in the bank-and most of them do, I think-will embrace a positive philosophy such as humanism, feminism or another naturalistic ethical system. Or they will promote charity, philanthropy, learning, science, beauty, art-all those human activities that enhance life. But to be an atheist, you don't need any positive philosophy at all or need to be a good person. You are an atheist if you lack a belief in a god.

I'm glad you posted this again. I sometimes get the impression that atheists feel that just by chucking belief, everything will be OK, that there needs to be no substitute for what religion, at its best, supplies a person and a culture. I have a critique of religion but also sympathy for it. I think that holding back from wherever the culture may want to be going is necessary, and that religion has been the most effective vehicle for this holding back--for better and worse, it is true. But there needs to be some strong positive philosophy, as Barker says, if it isn't to be religion. The job of those of us who are atheists would seem to be to match the positive effects that religious groups do have. This is actually a tall order.

Suzanne: "If there may be a god, you are looking for material evidence. If my expression encompasses what you think is the only paractical choice for a belief, you are in essence saying that god may in fact exist, you are looking for material evidence to support that gods existance. The "he" you refer to as begging is yourself."

The infinitesimal chance I give to there being a god is due entirely to my philosophy and has nothing to do with evidence. On the other hand, and not to be mistaken, my belief that there is no god is reliant upon the evidence(the lack thereof). The evidence does not need to be merely physical. Any evidence will do. The problem is that there is no compelling evidence for the existence of a god.

Suzanne: "If religions, through out the world, are based on some form of entity of higher power that can be dismissed as false, am I not using critical thinking to wonder if those religions may also be dismissed as false."

Some people would argue that the truth value of religion isn't as important as it's meaningfulness and healing value. Novels don't need to be true to have a lasting and meaningful impact on a person. So while the basis for religion may be false, who doesn't like to dance?

Suzanne: "The premise of religion, is that god infact does exist. Please provide examples that this is not true, otherwise, you are incorrect in stating that this premise is false."

You can enforce reality upon logic, but can you enforce logic upon reality? Religion may be based on the idea that god exists, but if they have that wrong, the house of cards doesn't fall down. The state of affairs is that... they are simply believing in a falsehood. The fact that they are wrong about god doesn't suddenly doom their religion to non-existence!

Suzanne: "The non existance of a god is central to Atheism, but god is still a presence, making Atheism a religion."

No, god is not still a presence. Any chance he exists is despite my beliefs, not in lieu of them.

Suzanne: "[i]This is my logic in asking is it possible to have religion without god[/i]."

Your logic is that religion can only exist because there is no god, or at least if there is a god, it is utterly invisible, both physically and metaphysically.

Robert: "For example, I believe absolutely in the existence of the universe as described by astronomy, and am happy to be arrogant in debating anyone who disagrees."

Okay then, tell me the universe as astronomy describes it. Be sure to give detail, so the description becomes synthetic rather than analytic.

tell me the universe as astronomy describes it. Be sure to give detail, so the description becomes synthetic rather than analytic.

Thinking about the distinction between synthetic and analytic judgements as applied to astronomy, I'm not sure how increased detail makes a statement synthetic. Recalling Kant, we have four classes of judgement combining a priori (necessary) and a posteriori (contingent) with analytic (answer contained in premise) and synthetic (answer not contained in premise)

A priori analytical: where answer is necessarily contained in the terms
eg 2+2=4, a triangle has three sides

A priori synthetic: eg God is Love, the future will conform to the past. These arguments are believed to be necessary truths by faith

A posteriori analytic: information from direct observation: eg the sun came up today, the sun is on the main sequence, the expansion of the universe is accelerating

A posteriori synthetic: Inference from observation, eg California is in the USA, the cosmic background microwave radiation is the signature of the big bang, life evolves by natural selection

I am not sure if the level of inference involved in empirical observation correlates to the analytic/synthetic distinction. However, a key set of synthetic judgements is those that predict the future through the a priori faith that the future will be conformable to the past. For example, discussing if the sun will rise tomorrow, the chance it will not is so vanishingly small that we must proceed as if we know absolutely (recognising that the term sunrise is a distortion, as it is caused by our movement rather than that of the sun). This example extrapolates to broader predictions, with the comparison between the sun and other main sequence stars indicating its expected future life around five billion years before going nova.

We need to apply the a priori synthetic faith that the future will be conformable to the past as a basis for confidence in any prediction. I don't think this is really very arrogant, but refusing to countenance it seems a form of false humility. Remember, we are talking cosmos not economy, and the variables affecting questions about the cosmos can often be identified with a high level of certainty.

In terms of politics, if scientists say they are not sure about things that they are sure about, they leave open room for those with base motives to influence the gullible, as occurred in the corruption of scientific politics by the Bush administration.

RT: “For example, discussing if the sun will rise tomorrow, the chance it will not is so vanishingly small that we must proceed as if we know absolutely.”

The key words above are “as if”. Of course that’s how we should proceed, but when critical thinking is concerned, it is imperative that we recognize it is not absolute, regardless of how we choose to proceed.

RT: “We need to apply the a priori synthetic faith that the future will be conformable to the past as a basis for confidence in any prediction. I don't think this is really very arrogant, but refusing to countenance it seems a form of false humility.”

It would be more arrogant if you were to say we should have “certainty” that the future will be conformable to the past. Of course, that isn’t the case, and all we can have is faith. That is not an absolute, even if within the eyes of the beholder it appears that way.

RT: “Remember, we are talking cosmos not economy, and the variables affecting questions about the cosmos can often be identified with a high level of certainty.”

There is a different between an extremely high level of certainty and absolute certainty.

RT: “In terms of politics, if scientists say they are not sure about things that they are sure about, they leave open room for those with base motives to influence the gullible, as occurred in the corruption of scientific politics by the Bush administration.”

That’s irrelevant, although I also find it disgusting that idiots take advantage of what they don’t understand of the nuances of the philosophy of science and spin it for public favor.

We are dealing with infinite probabilities here. Or numbers so large that in comparison to our life-span, they may as well be infinite. we can safely behave as though the sun will rise tomorrow because the odds are astronomically high that it will.

This applies to Interbane's stance on a god. He does not believe in the god's that have been presented to us because none of the lanes of argument used to support them have ever born fruit. Those gods, under scrutiny always fail to produce to their own claims.

The probability of a god's existence, as defined by most religion, is infinitely improbable. That a relative certainty, but certainly enough for us to act on. We design cars, baby rattles, and nuclear weapons with less statistical certainty.

Stepping down from this level of debate to another which i think was touched on briefly, and has bearing to discussion about religion.

You see on CNN all the time where the get two people and put them in little windows right next to each other, then the overtalking begins and we are all treated to a "debate".

Often times one argument is CLEARLY the correct one, and the other is a blatant partisan attempt to sow confusion in the un-educated. Re: any discussion involving Ann Coulter.

Because someone has the right to their opinion does not mean it is as valid as one with mountains of evidence in it's support. Mediators should feel free to call down idiocy where they see it.

Valid arguments cannot be arrogantly dismissed. New and interesting takes on old data cannot be dismissed either. Arguments such as the pink unicorns sited by Frank can be dismissed with ease based on what we know about unicorns and the other planets in our solar system, along with other arguments making outrageous claims with no support.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum

BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.